1) Use the attached reading for question 1
Read Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corporation
Respond to the three Case Questions found on page 188.
Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions as noted in the Critical Legal Thinking, Ethics, and contemporary Business questions. Argue both sides of all issues.
2) Use the attached reading for question 2
Read California and Hawaiian Sugar Company v. Sun Ship, Inc.
Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions on whether the use of liquidated damage clauses in contracts is good or bad for your business by giving examples of when the clause should and should not be used.
Provide convincing arguments for both sides of this issue.
3. Use the attached reading for question 3
Read Sections 11.1 Cybersquatting (pp. 240-241); 9.2 Agreement (p. 202); 10.3 Force Majeure Clause (p. 224); and 11.8 E-License (p. 242).
Check the decisions of the highest appellate courts, if a case is cited, for each fact pattern.
Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions on whether each of the four subjects affect business in the United States and if so, provide the worst and best case scenarios.
1. Read Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corporation
In reference to this case, the two parties had an implied-in-fact contract because both parties' actions presumably provided intent to contractually agree upon terms regarding the use of the plaintiff's idea for marketing purposes with a tacit understanding, as inferred from their conduct and other circumstances that the plaintiffs would be compensated for their idea. Implied-in-fact contracts are automatically created when a party tacitly accepts a benefit at a time when it is possible to reject it. The plaintiffs in this case proved that an unambiguous offer, unambiguous acceptance, mutual intent to be bound, and consideration were present through the conduct of both parties.
Taco Bell was unethical and virtually criminal in their attempt to "steal" an idea that they had contracted to pay for. The company was intent upon using the idea created by the plaintiffs for their marketing without paying for the intellectual property that created the idea. The company used abhorrent business practices, which is why a jury awarded the plaintiffs over $40 million in damages, and this was justifiable.
As I stated in the first paragraph, an implied-in-fact contract most certainly existed in this case, which was predicated upon the facts and circumstances that clearly proved Taco Bell and the plaintiffs had a mutual intent to contract as was shown by the conduct of both parties. Therefore, a true contract existed, which was inherently breached and violated wherein Taco Bell "stole" the idea behind the marketing concept, subsequently launched a successful ad campaign using the stolen idea, and refused to ...
The expert examines contracts and breaches of contracts.